For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.

Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.

The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.

I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.

DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.

One sign of a humane and just society is how we react when confronted with an unexpected injustice. The torture and abuse inflicted on chickens by farm workers was intentional and wholly unacceptable. The reactions that poured in on social media show that we have compassion for animals and, generally speaking, an understanding that there are more proper ways to handle the production of chicken prior to it being served up on our dinner plates.

There is another species in Canada that endures a similar fate to the suffering chickens seen in the Mercy for Animals video. In fact, this species has no protection whatsoever and this leads to 100,000 of them being dismembered, disemboweled, and decapitated every single year in Canada. And there is nary a murmur or complaint from the public.

It is laudable to advocate for the humane treatment of chickens and to express righteous indignation when exposed to videos such as we saw this week. How much more, then, should we advocate for something far more precious than a chicken? If we are truly a humane and compassionate society then it’s time for Canadians to ask for lawful protection of pre-born children.

We know that censorship is the new weapon of choice for those intent on preventing Canadians from knowing the truth about abortion. This decision is a huge victory for us and ensures that we can more effectively work to advance protections for pre-born children!

ARPA Canada, the parent organization of We Need a Law has put a lot of resources into this case. In fact, it was one of the reasons we went on the STOP CENSORSHIP tour earlier this year.

A quick recap:
In January 2012, the Government of Ontario amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by adding Section 65 (5.7) which reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” In 2015, together with Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down this censorship provision.

The case was heard on February 1, 2017 where the applicants asked Mr. Justice Marc Labrosse to rule that Section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA was unconstitutional because it censored the residents of Ontario, indeed all Canadians, from having access to meaningful abortion related information.

From ARPA’s press release earlier today:
ARPA is very pleased that Justice Labrosse came to this conclusion. “This is a huge victory for freedom of expression,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “It’s historic. There has never been a decision granting access to information from the executive branch based on the freedom of expression provision of the Charter. All disclosure orders to date have been made on a statutory rather than constitutional basis. Abortion is a matter of public importance and the courts have long recognized this. Abortion is also a recognized political issue, and political expression is at the core of protected speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“This decision strengthens democracy,” continued Schutten. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

The hard work of ARPA lawyers John Sikkema, André Schutten as well as outside counsel Albertos Polizogopoulos is to be commended! We also express deep appreciation for the perseverance and dedication of Ms. Maloney. Thanks Pat!

We are not sure how the Government of Ontario will respond to this decision. The court has given them a year to allow for the adoption of remedial legislation. Suffice to say, this case was about transparency and democracy. In our view, the actions of a democratic government and the money it spends should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter.

But more importantly, this case is about justice. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Even if many wish to condone or even celebrate this, nobody can deny that a human life has been taken. The way to deal with this is not to censor all abortion-related information. Rather it is to allow the truth to be known, and then to engage in meaningful public discourse about how to address the over 100,000 abortions that occur in Canada every year. There must be documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion and regulations put in place to limit it.

We hope you will join us in remaining diligent in ensuring that the state cannot simply hide information they feel is not in their political interest to discuss.

As we approach our 150^th birthday this summer, we shouldn’t be resting on the laurels of a renowned human rights record. Instead, we should be engaged in serious reflection and self-examination. How can we do better?

The number one way in which we can do better is in relation to our most vulnerable. Pre-born babies continue to be discarded by the tens of thousands every year. Politicians are scared of the topic – Liberals because they could lose their jobs if they talk about it, Conservatives because they’re told they may not get the job if they talk too much about it.

In our apparent attempt to maintain an international reputation as tolerant, progressive, and accommodating, we have ended up with special interest rights trumping human rights. “Reproductive rights” have somehow trumped the right to life, and suggesting that human rights should trump women’s rights is not going to win me any popularity contests.

It is only a matter of time, however, before everyone has to admit that the emperor has no clothes. Science has never been clearer regarding the intricate humanity of life in the womb. The pre-born child is unequivocally a separate, living human being. It is dependent on its mother, yes, as is a newborn or toddler. Also like a newborn or toddler, the pre-born child has its own DNA, and can even be operated on separately from the mother.

In the blur of plummeting birth rates and newfound sexual freedom that came with widely available birth control, we as women somehow came to believe that we were the masters of conception. Not one of us would ever again have a child against her will; we would decide whether life lived or died within us. This belief led us to fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that pregnancy might just be something we couldn’t always control, and we’ve managed to convince a lot of women to cling to that control regardless of the consequences. By doing so, we’ve also allowed men to step back from responsibility, to expect control, and to turn a blind eye to consequences.

The rights to life, liberty and security of the person were matters of life and death to our forefathers. They founded our nation on these values because these values mean something. We cannot be casual about these terms, or the associated implication that human rights trump individual rights. The right to life, the primary human right, is violated every moment that abortion remains legal in Canada. We need to stand up and say this is not about bodily autonomy or fighting patriarchy, this is about life. So women, men and children from all ages and stages of life, all backgrounds, all with their own stories, beliefs, and reasons for being there, will march. We march for, and stand for, the right to life for all members of the human family.

Who is Rick Peterson? He is one of the fourteen candidates vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. He’s an investment advisor from Vancouver, BC, a self-avowed “progressive conservative” who joined the leadership race last November after many others had already been campaigning for months. One of fourteen candidates, he hasn’t even been on the radar of pro-lifers. In fact, according the pro-life group Right Now, he doesn’t even deserve consideration by Canadians who are working to advance pre-born human rights.

So, you may ask, what could possibly be in this Peterson email that serves to encourage us? I won’t quote the email in its entirety, but the middle three paragraphs are telling:

I will be compassionate in understanding that some women may choose to undergo an abortion because they find themselves in a difficult situation.

To that end, as Prime Minister, I will work with provinces in order to reduce teenage pregnancies and increase funding for psychological counseling in abortion clinics. I will also increase collaboration with charities and organizations that provide support to pregnant women in financial or psychological distress.  I will also support initiatives that inform pregnant women about financial aid and adoption programs as a mean to reduce the number of abortions.

In line with the Party platform, I will support and prioritize comprehensive legislation making it criminal to use abortion as a mean to discriminate against female fetuses. (emphasis added)

The email begins with Peterson stating that he is “pro-choice” and clearly he supports a women’s right to choose abortion. And yet, if elected, Mr. Peterson is promising to address teenage pregnancy, increase funding for charities (pregnancy care centres), and criminalize sex-selective abortion! The only other candidate to address these topics with tangible policy solutions is Pierre Lemieux, and based on his long pro-life record we would expect Lemieux to speak to this.

What would precipitate Peterson offering promises on something so far out of his wheelhouse? The answer is YOU! You have not given into the idea that the debate on pre-born human rights is over, and have made it clear that a successful leadership bid can include pro-life promises. Now, before I get too far ahead of myself or you misunderstand, I am not suggesting that Peterson should receive your support. We Need a Law is non-partisan, which means that we will not endorse or oppose any candidate. What I am saying is that, because of your persistence in calling for abortion laws, and your continued participation in all aspects of the political process, candidates are realizing that they need our support if want to have a chance of winning.

God only knows if Rick Peterson will be successful in the Conservative Party leadership race. What we have been given through his specific targeting of pro-life support is a huge endorsement of our efforts.

Please be encouraged and continue to press on!

New developments in prenatal monitoring certainly can be seen as positive although this latest news from the United Kingdom is less than encouraging. As reported by LifeNews.com there has been a 34% increase in the number of abortions on babies with Down syndrome since a new genetic test became available in 2011. From the article:

Although most of the medical community praises the new screening, fetal medicine specialist Dr. Bryan Beattie, aired a different perspective on the testing. He said, “The real issue next, in around two or three years’ time, will be an ethical one – where do you stop? Do you screen for breast cancer genes, for Huntington’s – or taking it a step further, test for eye and hair colour?”

Canada is not immune to this either and we ought not deceive ourselves. This technology is being used as a tool for eugenics, in an attempt to “improve” society by eliminating less-than-perfect pre-born children.

LifeNews.com interviewed Hayley Goleniowska, a mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said, “I fear it will lead to a larger abortion rate of babies with Down’s. In quieter moments I weep to think of what we could lose. Women need unbiased information – it’s not the test that worries me, it’s how it is implemented.”

Events over the past one hundred years have shown us what happens when taking the life of another human being is justified under the guise of eugenics. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.

When the Supreme Court in the U.S. legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) they extended a woman’s privacy rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to her decision to have an abortion. This legal reality changed somewhat in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) when the court affirmed that a woman has a right to abortion, but only until fetal viability.

In Canada women have no such right. Certainly, abortion was decriminalized in Canada when our Supreme Court ruled in the R. v. Morgentaler decision (1988), but the judges did not give women a “constitutional right” to abortion.

Yet, in the 43 years since Roe v. Wade pro-lifers in the U.S. have advanced many protections for pre-born children, while in Canada we are closing in on three decades of failure to enact any such legislation. In the past six years alone the US has passed more than 300 pro-life laws!

The Casey decision opened the door to state legislation that regulated the procedure and also protected pre-born children in the latter stages of pregnancy. According to National Right to Life, the oldest and largest pro-life organization in the U.S., 14 states have what are called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection” laws in place. Such laws protect from abortion pre-born children who are capable of feeling pain. Medical evidence demonstrates with certainty that pre-born children are capable of experiencing pain by 20 weeks after fertilization; these laws ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

Why has Canada not passed fetal pain legislation? In a 2014 letter to The Guardian, Gerard Mitchell, former provincial court judge (1975-77), P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice (1981-1987) and Chief Justice from 1987 until 2008 wrote the following about the Morgentaler decision: “None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Even Madam Justice Wilson, who rendered the most liberal opinion in favour of a right to abortion, advocated an approach to abortion that would balance that right with the state’s interest in protecting the unborn.” [Emphasis added]

The answer to the question, “Why has Canada not passed fetal pain legislation” (or any legislation that regulates abortion) is not because the science isn’t on our side. And it’s certainly not because our highest court has given Canadian women a right to abortion. Rather, a significant reason why the status quo remains is because of the inertia and fear of politicians to support such legislation in the face of a virtually unchallenged liberal media.

Fetal pain legislation similar to what we’ve seen passed in the U.S. would ban abortion after twenty weeks gestation. While statistics on abortion are difficult to ascertain in Canada, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada estimates there were 104,158 abortions in 2014. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, approximately 2.4% of abortions are procured after 20 weeks gestation. Based on these estimates, we can safely say that 2,500 abortions occur post-twenty weeks gestation every year in Canada. But the reality is we don’t really know.

Fetal pain legislation would not only save lives, it is supported by a majority of Canadians. You don’t need to call yourself pro-life to understand that inflicting pain on a human being is unjust.

In other pages of this issue of Reflections Magazine you will read about the substantive medical evidence that pre-born children experience pain by twenty weeks gestation.

The status quo can be improved on and fetal pain legislation can become a reality in Canada.

The role of the state is to pass laws that restrict evil. Fetal pain legislation could limit the evil of abortion and save the lives of pre-born children. Fetal pain legislation would also raise the cultural awareness of the human rights of the pre-born child. It would put abortion restrictions back into the Criminal Code, thereby sending the message that something is wrong with abortion.

Progressive improvement is better than deferred protection.
_______________________________
This article was written by Mike Schouten, the director for WeNeedaLAW.ca, a public awareness campaign that mobilizes Canadians for the purpose of passing laws that protect pre-born children. It first appeared in Life Canada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted here with permission. 

Sources:
Guttmacher Institute (2016, January 4) 2015 Year-End State Policy Roundup. Retrieved from: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2016/01/2015-year-end-state-policy-roundup
The 1988 Morgentaler Decision – What the Supreme Court decided. Retrieved from: http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/what-the-court-decided/
Planned Parenthood (2014, January) Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact. Retrieved from: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf
National Right to Life (2016, May 31) Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Retrieved from: http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/stateleg/PCUCPAfactsheet.pdf
We Need a Law – Direction Matters. Retrieved from: https://test.weneedalaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Postition-Paper-on-Gestational-Laws.pdf

Last week Canada committed $20 million to a hastily organized “International Abortion Fund” so that women in developing countries would be able to access abortion services. Marie-Claude Bibeau, Canada’s International Development Minister, told reporters on a conference call that the $20 million was just a start and was all she could get together on such short notice. Canada’s financial commitment was in response to the United States’ decision to cease funding organizations that facilitate abortion overseas. Considering what slow progress is made on addressing issues such as climate change and poverty, it was amazing to see how quickly international partnerships came together to signal solidarity with abortion providers in underdeveloped countries.

Canadians shouldn’t be surprised at this action by the Liberal government. After all, when he became leader, Justin Trudeau did announce that the Liberals were a “no choice-but-pro-choice” party when he declared a ban on pro-life candidates prior to the 2015 election.

It’s not just overseas that abortion access is important to this government. A few weeks ago Maryam Monsef, Canada’s new Status of Women Minister gave Planned Parenthood Ottawa $285,000 so they can use it to help women who face barriers to abortion. According to Ms. Monsef, any barriers to abortion constitute “gender-based violence”.

To be sure, Canadians deplore gender-based violence. It is an affront to the dignity of all human beings and we need bold leadership to address this ongoing challenge. But are we really addressing it by throwing tax dollars to local Planned Parenthood offices or into an international fund where we really have no control over what happens to it?

What if that money is actually contributing to gender-based violence? Internationally, and right here in Canada, there is a form of “reproductive choice” that is itself gender-based violence.

A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2016, and reported widely by the media, found that abortion is occurring in Canada based solely on the sex of the child. Most often a female fetus is aborted due to a preference for a male child. The study of more than 6 million births across Canada was received with shock and alarm by Canadians across the political spectrum.

Tripat Kaur, Coordinator of the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association, commented, “Sadly and unfortunately sometimes women don’t have any control…she’s forced to do that [abort her child because it’s a girl]. Prenatal sex-determination tests should be banned.” Amrita Mishra, the Project Coordinator for the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association responded to the study by saying, “This problem [sex-selective abortion] is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.”

Sex-selective abortion is an affront to the dignity of women and girls. It is gender-based violence. That is why countries around the world are taking steps to protect female fetuses from being discriminated against in such a violent manner. China, which is regularly called out for its human rights abuses, prohibits the use of ultrasound to identify the sex of the fetus unless it is necessitated on medical grounds. And, most recently the UK Parliament voted 181-1 for the introduction of a bill that clarified Britain’s law on sex-selective abortion.

Rather than virtue signaling by committing millions of dollars to fund abortion overseas (and very likely contributing to the global problem of gendercide) Canada’s leaders should bring Canada into line with international standards. They should tackle the injustice of gendercide by prohibiting the vilest form of gender-based violence – killing pre-born girls simply because they are girls.

Except, there is an inconsistency in when science matters and when it doesn’t. When discussing human life, and the genesis of each human being, science is completely ignored and that includes the possible experience of pain a fetus may feel during the abortion procedure.

In Europe, restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation are common and accepted, and, as such, fetal pain is addressed much differently than in Canada or the United States. In North America, many people come from a perspective of fear, where any consideration given to a fetus is viewed as an attack on women’s rights.

Studies from India and the United Kingdom refer to the rising demand for fetal surgery, and the “considerable evidence that the fetus may experience pain” leads to the uncomplicated conclusion that the right types and doses of anesthetic need to be determined for various procedures. It is clear that anesthesiologists require specialized training to address the needs of pregnant women and their pre-born children.

Multiple studies have shown that even babies who are not yet viable (before 20-24 weeks) exhibit consistent, measurable stress responses to pain. While many still debate the brain science behind this, a study out of the UK says these reactions themselves are enough to result in “a moral obligation to provide fetal anaesthesia and analgesia.”  It has also been shown and attested to by multiple doctors specializing in the field of fetal surgery that “pain and stress may affect fetal survival and neurodevelopment.”

A study from Belgium admits that providing anesthesia prenatally presents a challenge, both from the perspective of its questionable necessity as well as dosage considerations. Still, recognizing the delicate balance when both mother and child need to be taken into account is fundamentally different from the Canadian question of whether both need to be taken into account.

Kirti Saxena, published in the Indian Journal of Anesthesia, states, “After surgery there are two patients to be cared for, and a second operating room should be available in case further surgery is needed in the neonate.”

As science and medicine continue to advance, fetal surgeries will become more common. Increased prenatal testing and diagnosis may lead to increased abortions, but seem just as likely to lead to increased demand for reliable fetal surgeries to give children their best chance at life.

In Canada, we need to follow the lead of our European counterparts, where fetal surgery and fetal anesthetic are inextricably linked, and where the humanity of the second patient is assumed, not demonized. This will allow fetal surgery as a field to improve and develop to become another support system for women.  Our laws need to reflect the humanity of the second patient in fetal surgeries, honouring the mothers who choose to give their babies a chance as well as the doctors who pour their talents into such tiny, fragile patients.

This article was written by Anna Nienhuis, Research and Communications Coordinator for WeNeedaLAW.ca. It first appeared in LifeCanada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted with permission.

February 17, 2017

Dear Honourable Maryam Monsef,

Thank you for your continued service to our country in the capacity of Status of Women Minister. As a role model for Canadian women and girls you have an important task and I applaud you for your leadership.

You were recently quoted in a news article in which you stated that, “Reproductive health rights in Canada and around the world are critical to advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. We’re committed to making sure that women and girls have that choice, because otherwise, this is a form of gender-based violence.” Gender-based violence is an affront to the dignity of all human beings and I am thankful that the Liberal Party of Canada is taking steps to address it.

My concern, Ms. Monsef, is that there is a form of reproductive choice that is itself gender-based violence.

A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2016, and reported on widely by the media, found that abortion is occurring in Canada based solely on the sex of the child. Most often a female fetus was aborted due to a preference for a male child. The study of more than 6 million births across Canada was received with shock and alarm by Canadians across the political spectrum. The news caused Tripat Kaur, Coordinator of the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association to say, “Sadly and unfortunately sometimes women don’t have any control…she’s forced to do that [abort her child because it’s a girl]. Prenatal sex-determination tests should be banned.” Amrita Mishra, the Project Coordinator for the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association responded by saying, “This problem [sex-selective abortion] is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.”

Ms. Monsef, sex-selective abortion is an affront to the dignity of women and girls; it is gender-based violence. That is why countries around the world are taking steps to protect female fetuses from being discriminated against in such violent manner.

Will you show leadership by bringing Canada into line with every other civilized nation and tackling this form of gender-based violence?

We are requesting a meeting with you at the earliest opportunity to discuss how we address this growing problem of gender-based violence in Canada. Please advise what date works best for your schedule. We can be reached at 1-866-410-9625 or info@test.weneedalaw.ca.

Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mike Schouten

Director, WeNeedaLaw.ca